About your Search

20130104
20130112
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
picking this guy for the job he needs done at the pentagon, but i do recognize their tactics. they're the same ones they used to push the war in iraq. they say they don't like something he said, hagel did, 14 years ago about a gay man being put up for ambassador. i don't like it either, but, a, it was 14 years ago, and, b, i don't think it's got anything to do with why the hawks are opposing him. since when is the right wing of this country so caring for gay rights? as bill clinton would say, give me a break. and this isn't about israel's security any more than it's about ours. the right wants a hawk at defense for all occasions. someone with an itchy trigger finger who has always got a country lined up to go to war with, iraq, afghanistan, iraq again, libya, syria, iran. sorry, the guy you lined up to be president would have picked a person you'd want as defense chief, a real genuine hawk, but mitt romney lost, didn't he? he lost. so keep firing off those anti-hagel columns and editorials, my right wing brothers, and don't worry, you won't get hurt. it's why they don't give you pu
announced the nomination of the former senator from your state to head the pentagon. let's take a listen. >> chuck hagel is the leader that our troops deserve. he is an american patriot. he enlisted in the army and volunteered for vietnam. to this day he bears the scars and shrapnel for battles he fought in our name. we see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength. they see one of their own. most importantly, chuck knows war is not an abstraction. he understands that sending young americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. >> well, senator hagel paid tribute to the men and women in uniform at the announcement today. let's listen to the nominee himself. >> mr. president, i am grateful for this opportunity to serve our country again and especially its men and women in uniform and their families. these are people that give so much to this nation every day with such dignity and selflessness. this is particularly important at a time as we complete our mission in afghanistan and support the troops and military famil
that hit the twin towers and the pentagon. we have to attack iraq because we've got evidence they have weapons of mass destruction, wmd, even if there's no evidence they have nuclear weapons and it would turn out they didn't have chemical or biological either. we have to attack iraq, the hawks, they promised it would bring peace between israel and the palestinians. the road to jerusalem runs through baghdad it was said. what we've got instead is the loss of even a chance for peace in the middle east. well, tonight the people who sold america the iraq war are out selling more warfare in the middle east. they want military action against syria, they want war waged against syria, and they want chuck hagel out of the way. why? because he's just the kind of guy who will ask, what should we have asked when "w" took us to war in iraq? is this really the smart thing to do for us? we've got peter beinart right now with the daily beast and sam stein with "the huffington post." thank you. i have been reading your stuff. sam, you quoted colonel lawrence wilkerson who served as chief of staff to co
could help him do the job of reforming at the pentagon and saving some money? >> yes, i think -- well, in the first few months -- i won't be there long enough even if i get it. but the job there is to run interference for him. by the way, some basic politics, you understand, chris, cutting existing weapons systems with all the web of contracts out there can be hard, but what you can do is not start new ones. it's easier to block projects that shouldn't be done going forward than to start them, and i certainly will be there. i hope he's going to continue to support the notion of an early withdrawal from afghanistan, not keep 20,000 troops there forever at a cost of billions, and finally i think it's time to re-examine a nuclear deterrent which we still maintain basically at the strength we needed to defeat a fully nuclear armed soviet union and the troops in europe. i misspoke when i said pull the troops out of nato. i want us to stay in nato but let the western european nations keep the troops in western europe. let's have a genuine cooperation, not a one-sided deal where america give
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)